Shooting Missiles - What is needed to Strike?

[guardiandashi]

sigh still doing the lame rules lawyering rather than actually addressing the point.

Every thing in combat has a starting point, where it was at the start of combat. Lots of things that are not a straight lines have starting points. A trail that winds through a mountain has start point. I used the word start point because as your statement about relative to the earth shows is outside your illogical stance, even though it is commonly known concept.


Why is it you seam to have a problem understanding how speed is commonly measured? Is understanding what is intended when some one says a vehicle can travel 100 MPH or when some one says something is traveling 100 MPH beyond on you? (because that seams to be what you are arguing.) Do you think this augment would work in court if you traveling faster than the speed limit in a school zone?

Well the same would be true on any planetary body as earth you measure speed relative to it.


The extremes you are going to try and prove a commonly known concept of how people commonly talk about and measure speed is not something that can be resonably be known is beyond absurd. It makes it look like you are creating an augment for the sake of auguring
(trolling).
**The way the rule is written the only thing that matters is the common usage of traveling at speed, all these advance physics that you are trying to misapply to the statment are irrelevent. The speed the attacker traveling at is Irrelevent. The only thing that matters is the speed the target is traveling at as it would be measured bassed off a fixed point of the planets surface.(I have tried difrent ways to explain this to you but you seam unable to understand the common usage and keep trying to bring in irrelvent word games.)

So, given your interpretation of how the rules are written for moving targets what kind of penalties would you apply to the following situation:
Two characters are on opposite ends of a dining car on a bullet train traveling at 200 mph. A shoot out begins between the two characters each with an energy weapon (a pistol let's say). Now, if I am to understand your interpretation correctly, both characters would be firing with a penalty because, as targets, they are traveling at 200 mph (in relation to a fixed point on the planet's surface). Am I correct in this assumption? Thanks! This has been an invigorating argument.

IMO the way I would handle it, is if firing at each other (or anything on the train) essentially no speed penalties apply(possible a minus 1 or so depending on how smooth the ride is). if firing at anything OFF the train penalties apply

[jburkett]

sigh still doing the lame rules lawyering rather than actually addressing the point.

Every thing in combat has a starting point, where it was at the start of combat. Lots of things that are not a straight lines have starting points. A trail that winds through a mountain has start point. I used the word start point because as your statement about relative to the earth shows is outside your illogical stance, even though it is commonly known concept.


Why is it you seam to have a problem understanding how speed is commonly measured? Is understanding what is intended when some one says a vehicle can travel 100 MPH or when some one says something is traveling 100 MPH beyond on you? (because that seams to be what you are arguing.) Do you think this augment would work in court if you traveling faster than the speed limit in a school zone?

Well the same would be true on any planetary body as earth you measure speed relative to it.


The extremes you are going to try and prove a commonly known concept of how people commonly talk about and measure speed is not something that can be resonably be known is beyond absurd. It makes it look like you are creating an augment for the sake of auguring
(trolling).
**The way the rule is written the only thing that matters is the common usage of traveling at speed, all these advance physics that you are trying to misapply to the statment are irrelevent. The speed the attacker traveling at is Irrelevent. The only thing that matters is the speed the target is traveling at as it would be measured bassed off a fixed point of the planets surface.(I have tried difrent ways to explain this to you but you seam unable to understand the common usage and keep trying to bring in irrelvent word games.)

So, given your interpretation of how the rules are written for moving targets what kind of penalties would you apply to the following situation:
Two characters are on opposite ends of a dining car on a bullet train traveling at 200 mph. A shoot out begins between the two characters each with an energy weapon (a pistol let's say). Now, if I am to understand your interpretation correctly, both characters would be firing with a penalty because, as targets, they are traveling at 200 mph (in relation to a fixed point on the planet's surface). Am I correct in this assumption? Thanks! This has been an invigorating argument.

IMO the way I would handle it, is if firing at each other (or anything on the train) essentially no speed penalties apply(possible a minus 1 or so depending on how smooth the ride is). if firing at anything OFF the train penalties apply

Yes, this is essentially how I would handle this situation as well. I was just hoping to get to the crux (perhaps futilely) of this debate about whether relative speed should be a factor is how speed penalties are applied when shooting at moving targets. I believe, as others do, that all speed is relative (one object to another).

[Blue_Lion]

As written yes both targets would have a penalty for traveling at 200MPH as written the rule for shooting a moving target would apply. In addition shooting from a moving vehicle so a wild shot penalties as well. (the speed the shooter is traveling at is irrelevant.) That would be a combined minimal penalty to shoot one another of -10. (-6 for shooting from a moving vehicle/platform, 1 for shooting a moving target and -3 for traveling 50X3 miles faster than 20 MPH.)-

Now then if the two guys on the train where shooting at a tree on the side of the tracks the penalty would be -6 for shooting from a moving platform/vehicle.( I know it makes no sense that it is easier to shoot a tree on the side of the tracks than another passenger of the train.)

While not realistic it is the rules as written(raw). Removing the penalty to shoot each other on the same train, while logical is a house rule.


How it would work in my game-I would house rule it to make it make more sense and not apply the penalty for shooting at a moving target and only apply the penalty for shooting wild to shoot each other if it was a not a smooth ride.

* I am just recognize that while how speed is perceived is relative how it is commonly measured is a standard/fixed method. So it is not a lack of understanding of relative speed but correct application of the standard way speed is commonly measured.

Police now have dash board "radar" systems that can get the speed the target is traveling at even though the car is moving, the police car speed does not change the speed the target car is traveling at-that is because of a fixed standard that is not relative speed of the police car and the target car. (Outside of physics discussion how speed is measured is standard way, inside physics discussion it is all reletive, the game book was not written in a physics discussion frame of reference.)

[Natasha]

Free space is an inertial frame because there is zero net force. Where there is zero net force there is an inertial reference frame. Where there is an inertial frame, Newton's laws of motion are correct. Battles in outer space are faught in space free of external forces. That isn't strictly true since gravitation has infinite reach but it's also an inverse square law so you can ignore it for a motion problem such as a space battle.

So-called "free" space probably assumes a lot of things. Like if you're fighting in the space near the Earth and the Moon, you might manage to be far enough from either that their gravitational pulls become less noticeable, but you're still probably taking for granted the circular momentum you inherited from your point of orbit which keeps you in Earth's orbital path around its star, our sun Sol.

Even those free of that, are still probably taking for granted the momentum which keeps us within Sol's respective path within its larger galaxy.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "zero net force". Although it should be pointed out that momentum isn't a force, but they have a relationship. Force is to momentum what velocity is to position.

Why would you assume that Rifts assumes a Galilean reference frame in its rules? Kind of an outdated concept.

You could ask yourself the same question.

It's an old concept, but it isn't outdated. It is used everyday, all day. We now know that it's a limiting case of Special Relativity, which is a limiting case of General Relativity.

What if B is a moving point though? Suddenly it takes longer to get there if it's moving away from A, or less time if it's moving toward A.

Use the "rest" frame. Suddenly, it doesn't matter who's moving.

Could you explain your stance by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ?

The roundabout's axis of rotation is fixed, we might say it's "at rest". The kinematic quantities are computed relative to that. As it turns out, the axis of rotation is fixed to the surface.

There is no "the a starting point" specified, or any logical one to choose. Starting point WHEN? Where you were 1 second ago? 15 seconds ago?

Use the "rest" frame. Then it doesn't matter.

Take walking along the top of a car of a train chugging along at 100mph for example. In respect to the subway, you might be walking 5mph away from the middle of the car behind you and 5mph toward the middle of the car ahead of you, but in respect to someone standing on the tracks behind or ahead of the train, you could be moving toward/away at 95mph or 105mph depending on whether you were walking the direction the train was travelling.

Which observer, if any, is more like the player, the person for whom the rules were written? The one who knows the train is chugging along at 100 mph seems awfully reasonable.

Is that how you would measure speed on Wormwood? The Moon? Mars? Phase World? The Astral Plane? Asteroid Belts? Binary suns?

Use the "rest" frame. Then none of them have to exist.

[lather]

Take walking along the top of a car of a train chugging along at 100mph for example.

And boom goes the dynamite.
You just killed your own point.

[Axelmania]

sigh still doing the lame rules lawyering rather than actually addressing the point.

You haven't made one.

Every thing in combat has a starting point, where it was at the start of combat.

I'm going to give you an example of why that doesn't matter. Take someone who can fly at a speed of 1 foot per second, aka 15 feet per melee round aka 60 feet per minute.
Melee 1) combat starts, they fly 15 feet in one direction.
Melee 2) they do not move any further
Melee 3) they do not move any further
Melee 4) they fly a further 15 feet in the same direction.

Over the course of 1 minute they have moved 30 feet in 60 seconds. If we calculate speed from an arbitary start of combat starting point, this would represent their speed as 30ft/min even though, if you shot at them during the 4th round they were flying at their maximum speed.

Lots of things that are not a straight lines have starting points. A trail that winds through a mountain has start point. I used the word start point because as your statement about relative to the earth shows is outside your illogical stance, even though it is commonly known concept.

Your "your statement about relative to the earth shows is outside" really does not make any grammatical sense. I suggest if you want to present me as illogical that you word your reasons for thinking that more logically.

Why is it you seam to have a problem understanding how speed is commonly measured? Is understanding what is intended when some one says a vehicle can travel 100 MPH or when some one says something is traveling 100 MPH beyond on you? (because that seams to be what you are arguing.) Do you think this augment would work in court if you traveling faster than the speed limit in a school zone?

Speed limits have both minimums and maximums, and they are calculated by measuring speed at a given point, they are not averaged out from a starting position as you mention earlier.

They also have a clear direction for context: the road. Combat is not one-dimensional like this.

Well the same would be true on any planetary body as earth you measure speed relative to it.

You're wrongly assuming the existence of planetary bodies in a system which deals with space combat, dimensional portals and all kinds of other fun.

You're also assuming that planetary bodies are referenced in the rules: they are not.

The extremes you are going to try and prove a commonly known concept of how people commonly talk about and measure speed is not something that can be resonably be known is beyond absurd. It makes it look like you are creating an augment for the sake of auguring
(trolling).

BL it seems to me like you're coming up with arguments to insult me to flamebait for a negative action. If that's the case, THAT is trollish behavior.

I'm not going to bite, please stay on topic and stop coming back to personal attacks. I recall you doing this before. I don't like it.

The way the rule is written the only thing that matters is the common usage of traveling at speed, all these advance physics that you are trying to misapply to the statment are irrelevent.

The relativity of speed is not "advanced physics".
*here is a "Children's Encyclopedia" discussing it
*here is an explanation "for the school going child"

This gets aimed at adults too, of course, but I don't think that's due to it being advanced.

The speed the attacker traveling at is Irrelevent.

It is relevant because if you are both inheriting your planet's rotational speed, that cancels out.

The only thing that matters is the speed the target is traveling at as it would be measured bassed off a fixed point of the planets surface.(I have tried difrent ways to explain this to you but you seam unable to understand the common usage and keep trying to bring in irrelvent word games.)

Let me give you an example which illustrates the problem with your approach.

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. They are sitting next to each other, with their seatbelts on. They want to shoot each other with their laser pistols.

They are both travelling at 1500mph relative to some fixed starting point on the EARTH (as you keep insisting) so each would be over -20 to shoot the other.

Do you see the problem now?

Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

Edit... huh it appears Jburkett came up with a similar example... oh well, I'll keep mine, it's more setting-specific.

As written yes both targets would have a penalty for traveling at 200MPH as written the rule for shooting a moving target would apply.
..
While not realistic it is the rules as written(raw). Removing the penalty to shoot each other on the same train, while logical is a house rule.

This is where you are wrong.

There is no "as written" that it is speed relative to the Earth. You made that up.

"Speed" isn't given context, so we must use our own judgment. Good judgment leads to discerning it means speed between the two established things within that action: shooter and target.

Bad judgement leads to thinking your speed relative to something other than your attacker would be of any benefit to you in being harder to hit.

Take walking along the top of a car of a train chugging along at 100mph for example.

And boom goes the dynamite.
You just killed your own point.

No, I didn't. "The tracks" is implied as the frame of reference here, despite there being exceptions.

Conversely, the rules do not imply the earth, because from the outset in 1990 that would lead to ridiculous conclusions with combat inside mach-speed APCs.

[Natasha]

You've missed a critical point in all the websites you've posted about relative motion so far.

Two trains are standing beside one another in a station and one starts to move.

That quote is the first sentence of the section on relative velocity. To say that two trains are standing, we must have first measured their velocities with respect to the surface. The first sentence of the paragraph on relative velocity starts off exactly like Rifts rules do, exactly as you did with your 100 mph train, and exactly as you did with your 1500 mph grunts.

For velocity to have any meaning at all it must be measured in relation to some reference point.

Read this a few times and think about what it's saying. If you use the Shooter as the reference point to give velocity meaning, you must assert that the Shooter is inertial, which means its velocity never changes because it defines the standard of measure. Good luck with that.

If no reference is mentioned, it is normal to assume that all velocities are measured with reference to the stationary ground.

That is from one of your sources. Think about it and then about what you claim should be assumed when no reference is given, and consider the difference. Your source disagrees with you.

The two trains are moving along parallel paths, and it is an easy matter to calculate the velocity of one relative to the other, provided their velocities relative to the ground are already known.

Go back to the sentence describing what gives velocity meaning. What makes the direction component of their velocity parallel? What makes that a true statement? What gives it any meaning at all? The answer is given: "their velocities relative to the ground are already known".

For example, if one day you decide to walk to your school, which is 3 kms away, and if you take one hour to do this, your speed will be three kilometers per hour.

The first example given in that source assumes the surface is the reference point.

If I walk from the back to the front of a train at 3 m.p.h., and the train is traveling at 60 m.p.h., then common sense tells me that my speed relative to the ground is 63 m.p.h. As we have seen, this obvious truth, the simple addition of velocities, follows from the Galilean transformations.

That source asserts that common sense tells you to start with the surface. Otherwise, the train's velocity has no meaning.

Assuming a steady walking speed of u meters per second (relative to the train, of course), the walker will see the front clock to read L/u seconds on arrival there.

That source felt it was important to make the distinction because it's "common sense" and "normal" to think of velocities in terms of the surface. It actually says that it's necessary:

Hence it is necessary to do a careful analysis of a fairly speedy person moving from the back of the train to the front as viewed from the ground, to see how velocities really add.

What all of this adds up to is: use the surface.

True, Earth is rotating and it's orbiting, which is why I said the surface is "approximately inertial". That's a term you'll encounter the more you study physics; I didn't make it up. The associated speeds, as you correctly point out, are large. But the associated accelerations are small enough to be ignored for motion problems like ours. And it's acceleration that matters (see Newton's first and second laws of motion).

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. ... Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

Look at how you are arriving at 0. You find Shooter Grunt's velocity then Target Grunt's velocity then subtract. You are measuring their velocity with reference to the surface first so that you can perform the vector operation to find their relative velocities.

Good judgment leads to discerning it means speed between the two established things within that action: shooter and target.

It has been made abundantly clear that the "speed between the two established things" requires both speeds to be "measured with reference to the stationary ground" first. You couldn't give either your train or grunt example without doing precisely that first. Look at how you "established" them.

[eliakon]

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. ... Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

And they have a velocity of 0 because the local velocity is calculated by looking at how fast they are moving in regard to the frame of reference.
In this case the death head that they are both inside of is the frame, and thus they have a velocity of 0 each.
This is why when you take a shot at a person in the game, you do not add in the earths velocity around the Sun, nor the Sun's velocity around the Milky Way, nor the Galaxies movement ad infinitum.
The frame of reference for the game is more or less "this play area here" regardless of if that is the earth, or inside some ruins, or on a space ship or what have you.

[Blue_Lion]

Axlemania you are keep are ignoring 1 the common use of the term 2 how your sources says speed is commonly measured.


Think about it this way a vehicle has a top speed of 200 MPH. If there is no default refence point for speed that stat has no inherent value.

By your no default chased if a jet a speed max speed of 500 MPH was to chase a vehicle with a max speed of 200 MPH the vehicle being chased would never be caught because it would it would have a speed relative to the vehicle chasing it of 200 MPH.

If the commonly used method of determining speed is used the jet would catch the vehicle it is chasing because it is faster.

How do you know in your example that the death head transport is traveling at 1500 MPH how was the speed of the death head transport determined? Oh wait you used the common method of measuring speed relative to the ground. So while declaring speed has no default refence point you are making statements that require the use of it.


The rule is traveling X MPH, not traveling X MPH relative to the attacker. That means you use the default method to give a speed stat value. (relative to the ground.) So I am not using a house rule, but you are using flawed logic to disprove a known standard.

[Blue_Lion]

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. ... Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

And they have a velocity of 0 because the local velocity is calculated by looking at how fast they are moving in regard to the frame of reference.
In this case the death head that they are both inside of is the frame, and thus they have a velocity of 0 each.
This is why when you take a shot at a person in the game, you do not add in the earths velocity around the Sun, nor the Sun's velocity around the Milky Way, nor the Galaxies movement ad infinitum.
The frame of reference for the game is more or less "this play area here" regardless of if that is the earth, or inside some ruins, or on a space ship or what have you.

Umm.... what makes the death head the default frame when the death heads speed is detrimed by another frame so every thing in the death head exists in the same frame that the death head is. The reason we do not include the rotation of the earth in speed is the default way speed is commonly measured is in relation to the surface. Not because of your theory on limiting the frame.

The rule says is the speed the target is traveling at, not velocity, or speed relative to the attacker. People inside a vehicle that is traveling are traveling, even if the are not moving under their own power.

So both dead boys are traveling at 1500 MPH, because the are on a vehicle that is considered to be traveling at 1500 MPH. (there is a default frame used to give speed stats a value.) While they may have a relative velocity of 0 to each other, there is a default way to determined speed is based of the surface of the earth. The DB in a moving vehicle always has a velocity, that is why they can get injured in a crash. The vehicle you are in is not the limit to the frame you are in, but how you are traveling through the frame you are in.


Basically the death head is using speed relative to the ground (default value of speed) so every thing inside the death head is in the same frame as the death head, and traveling in the death head, even if they are not moving. Because that is how speed and traveling is commonly measured. (people are getting so caught up in physics the are forgetting how people commonly talk about speed and traveling.)


Now I do know this is illogical but it is RAW.

(people are so caught up with principles of physics they are forgetting the basics of how speed is talked about and commonly measured. Rifts is not written in physics but in the way people commonly talk about things.)

[Blue_Lion]

Shooting at a Moving Target: -1 to strike someone running (under 20 mph/32 km), -1 to strike for each additional 50 mph (80 km) of speed the target is traveling

Seams quite clear it is stating it is the speed the target is traveling at determines the level of the penalty. As written it does not indicate in any way it using speed relative to the attacker. So as written it would be using the commonly used method to determine how fast something is traveling.(The same method that is used by police to determine if you are driving faster than the speed limit.)

So if vehicle A is traveling at 70 MPH and vehicle B is traveling at traveling at 70 MPH.


If vehicles A and B shoot at a tree on the side of the road how fast is the tree traveling? (It is not but the speed relative to the attacker is 70 mph.)

If vehicle A shoots at vehicle B at what speed is vehicle B traveling at? (70 MPH speed relative to the attacker is unknown.)

If Bob and Sue are sitting in vehicle A how fast are they traveling? (70 MPH even though speed relative to each other is 0.)


Does Bob stop traveling because Sue shoots him for copping a feel?

Honestly the two people in the same vehcile is not related to the orginal point, just an attempt to try and create a specail case to make the use of the rule seam illogical. The oginial point was using the difrence of the speed of a missile and your vechile is a house rule. Casing a missile with a jet does not matter to the rule as written.

[Axelmania]

You've missed a critical point in all the websites you've posted about relative motion so far.

Two trains are standing beside one another in a station and one starts to move.

That quote is the first sentence of the section on relative velocity. To say that two trains are standing, we must have first measured their velocities with respect to the surface.

The concept of "standing beside one another" means they have no difference in velocity as it pertains to the other.

"in a station" is the point of reference, not "the surface".

The first sentence of the paragraph on relative velocity starts off exactly like Rifts rules do, exactly as you did with your 100 mph train, and exactly as you did with your 1500 mph grunts.

If you use the Shooter as the reference point to give velocity meaning, you must assert that the Shooter is inertial, which means its velocity never changes because it defines the standard of measure. Good luck with that.

Velocity is fixed at any given point in time.

Are you trying to comment on how speed could change between the time a bullet is fired and when it reaches its target?

That's a valid concern, if so. Particularly with very long-range combat and missiles which might take several melee rounds to get to a destination.

If no reference is mentioned, it is normal to assume that all velocities are measured with reference to the stationary ground.

That is from one of your sources. Think about it and then about what you claim should be assumed when no reference is given, and consider the difference. Your source disagrees with you.

The source does not disagree with me, because we have 2 reference points already: attacker and target.

The two trains are moving along parallel paths, and it is an easy matter to calculate the velocity of one relative to the other, provided their velocities relative to the ground are already known.

Go back to the sentence describing what gives velocity meaning. What makes the direction component of their velocity parallel? What makes that a true statement? What gives it any meaning at all? The answer is given: "their velocities relative to the ground are already known".

Knowing direction relative to ground is not required to calculate direction relative to each other.

Assuming a steady walking speed of u meters per second (relative to the train, of course), the walker will see the front clock to read L/u seconds on arrival there.

That source felt it was important to make the distinction because it's "common sense" and "normal" to think of velocities in terms of the surface.

To the contrary: this says "of course" meaning it is reminding people to use established context, not to resort to archaic thinking.

It actually says that it's necessary:

Hence it is necessary to do a careful analysis of a fairly speedy person moving from the back of the train to the front as viewed from the ground, to see how velocities really add.

What all of this adds up to is: use the surface.

Only if you are told to calculate velocity in respect to the surface, which Rifts doesn't do.

True, Earth is rotating and it's orbiting, which is why I said the surface is "approximately inertial". That's a term you'll encounter the more you study physics; I didn't make it up.

Earth is not the only platform which can endow approximate interiality between passengers.

The associated speeds, as you correctly point out, are large. But the associated accelerations are small enough to be ignored for motion problems like ours. And it's acceleration that matters (see Newton's first and second laws of motion).

I would be glad to acknowledge acceleration where Palladium says to apply it, but that doesn't appear to be here.

As I referenced earlier though, in acknowledgement of changes in velocity over time and how melee attacks generally would have a delay between attack-launch and attack-land, perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to average out start/end velocities and apply penalties based on the average.

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. ... Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

Look at how you are arriving at 0. You find Shooter Grunt's velocity then Target Grunt's velocity then subtract. You are measuring their velocity with reference to the surface first so that you can perform the vector operation to find their relative velocities.

The earth is only one example of a reference point. You can also calculate it directly from the Death's Head, or from a 2nd Death's Head following a mile behind.

Good judgment leads to discerning it means speed between the two established things within that action: shooter and target.

It has been made abundantly clear that the "speed between the two established things" requires both speeds to be "measured with reference to the stationary ground" first. You couldn't give either your train or grunt example without doing precisely that first. Look at how you "established" them.

[/quote]
Who "requires" this, exactly? You can measure speed between 2 things based on a satellite or a helicopter instead of the ground if you want to.

And they have a velocity of 0 because the local velocity is calculated by looking at how fast they are moving in regard to the frame of reference.
In this case the death head that they are both inside of is the frame, and thus they have a velocity of 0 each.
This is why when you take a shot at a person in the game, you do not add in the earths velocity around the Sun, nor the Sun's velocity around the Milky Way, nor the Galaxies movement ad infinitum.
The frame of reference for the game is more or less "this play area here" regardless of if that is the earth, or inside some ruins, or on a space ship or what have you.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.

My point is moreso that you don't have to have an actual object representing the "play area", because that simply is an explanation for why people aren't gradually drifting apart due to differences in air resistance.

Two people sitting side-by-side in a DHT are just as 0 as two people riding side-by-side in hovercycles.

Axlemania you are keep are ignoring 1 the common use of the term 2 how your sources says speed is commonly measured. Think about it this way a vehicle has a top speed of 200 MPH. If there is no default refence point for speed that stat has no inherent value.

The default reference point is the location of your vehicle at a previous point in time.

By your no default chased if a jet a speed max speed of 500 MPH was to chase a vehicle with a max speed of 200 MPH the vehicle being chased would never be caught because it would it would have a speed relative to the vehicle chasing it of 200 MPH.

I never said that speed relative to opponent applied outside of attack penalties, enough strawmanning.

How do you know in your example that the death head transport is traveling at 1500 MPH how was the speed of the death head transport determined?

Relative to its previous position.

Oh wait you used the common method of measuring speed relative to the ground.

Wrong. If I had to say it was in respect to anything I would say relative to a position within the atmosphere, since it is inheriting the atmosphere's momentum of rotation and solar orbit.

The rule is traveling X MPH, not traveling X MPH relative to the attacker.

"Traveling Xmph" is always relative to something. The frame of reference in the case of attacks is attacker and target, not target and Brittania or whatever landmass you're wanting to grab onto.

That means you use the default method to give a speed stat value. (relative to the ground.) So I am not using a house rule, but you are using flawed logic to disprove a known standard.

Whatever in the books might lead you to think this is the default is overriden by the context of attacks introducing a necessary point of reference: the attacker.

You're trying to determine whether an attacker can get a projectile to the target, not whether a target can get to their destination.

what makes the death head the default frame when the death heads speed is detrimed by another frame so every thing in the death head exists in the same frame that the death head is. The reason we do not include the rotation of the earth in speed is the default way speed is commonly measured is in relation to the surface. Not because of your theory on limiting the frame.

THE MEGAVERSE does not have a default frame of reference. Indefinite articles only mean something when context is present. The context of shots fired is shooter and target, not target and some point on the averaged circumference of the spherish Rifts Earth.

The rule says is the speed the target is traveling at, not velocity, or speed relative to the attacker. People inside a vehicle that is traveling are traveling, even if the are not moving under their own power.

People sitting inside Earth's atmosphere are also traveling, even if they are not moving under their own power. Thus concepts like "Spaceship Earth". Whether you are "traveling" is entirely specific to what frame of reference is used.

There is no reason for that frame of reference to be assumed to be Rifts Earth. If so then someone stationary on Mars is always "traveling" because the distance between them and Rifts Earth is always changing. Someone on the moon is also always "traveling" even if they remain stationary on the moon, because you INSIST that the frame of reference be Rifts Earth.

This is your house rule. We are never told the frame of reference must be Rifts Earth. The only frame of reference guaranteed to exist is the attacker. The only thing that matters is the rate at which the distance between attacker and target is changing over time in the "instant" the attack occurs.

(putting that in quotes since of course, attacks are rarely TRULY instantaneous so some specific point during an attack like launch/arrival might need to be chosen)

So both dead boys are traveling at 1500 MPH, because the are on a vehicle that is considered to be traveling at 1500 MPH. (there is a default frame used to give speed stats a value.) While they may have a relative velocity of 0 to each other, there is a default way to determined speed is based of the surface of the earth.

The default you have house-ruled and which is not present in the book.

The DB in a moving vehicle always has a velocity, that is why they can get injured in a crash.

If you are referring to RUE 356's similar 1D4 per 50mph above 20mph, that is clearly also velocity in respect to whatever it is you're crashing into.

If a SAMAS and Flying Titan speed away from a starting point at 300mph/290mph any minor bumps they have into the other would be 10mph.

The vehicle you are in is not the limit to the frame you are in, but how you are traveling through the frame you are in.

Frame of reference is not fixed, it is mutable.

Basically the death head is using speed relative to the ground (default value of speed) so every thing inside the death head is in the same frame as the death head, and traveling in the death head, even if they are not moving. Because that is how speed and traveling is commonly measured. (people are getting so caught up in physics the are forgetting how people commonly talk about speed and traveling.)

Kevin Siembieda is not a commoner. He's a smart guy.

(people are so caught up with principles of physics they are forgetting the basics of how speed is talked about and commonly measured. Rifts is not written in physics but in the way people commonly talk about things.)

People "commonly" don't even use numbers to measure speed, they'll just say "fast" or "slow".

Unless you can point out somewhere where Siembieda insists on using Rifts Earth as the universal frame of reference in the Megaverse, you don't have a leg to stand on.

If you have a copy of Heroes Unlimited 2nd Ed, check page 84 for example under "Crash & Damage Rules":

Damage is based on relative speed.
When something hits a stationary object then the only thing to worry about is the speed of the moving object.

Then an example is given:

Mike is traveling at 40mph,
a motorcycle approaches from the opposite direction at 60mph.
Their added speeds are 100mph
so the damage to both vehicles is 10D8

So your assumption is disproven.

Seams quite clear it is stating it is the speed the target is traveling at determines the level of the penalty.

"running" is just a hypothetical example in the case of a mundane runner and an unmoving attacker.

It doesn't mean it applies in all cases of runners, since there are runners faster than 20mph (Hyperion Juicers, Borgs) and higher speeds even for mundanes if you are traveling away from them.

As written it does not indicate in any way it using speed relative to the attacker. So as written it would be using the commonly used method to determine how fast something is traveling.(The same method that is used by police to determine if you are driving faster than the speed limit.)

Speed limits do not have attackers, they are measuring how fast you're moving along a road.

So if vehicle A is traveling at 70 MPH and vehicle B is traveling at traveling at 70 MPH.

If vehicles A and B shoot at a tree on the side of the road how fast is the tree traveling? (It is not but the speed relative to the attacker is 70 mph.)

Are you thinking it would be easier to fire at a rooted tree you're flying past at Mach 1 than someone you're holding hands with flying beside you at Mach 1?

If vehicle A shoots at vehicle B at what speed is vehicle B traveling at? (70 MPH speed relative to the attacker is unknown.)

If Bob and Sue are sitting in vehicle A how fast are they traveling? (70 MPH even though speed relative to each other is 0.)

There isn't a single answer here.

In respect to calculating how long it takes them to get to their destination, 70

In respect to how long it takes them to get to each other, 0

Does Bob stop traveling because Sue shoots him for copping a feel?

If you're sitting side by side, you aren't "traveling" any closer or further away from each other, even if you are in a moving vehicle.

If you fly in a plane from US to UK you are only traveling in respect to New York and London, not your seatmate.

If your seatmate wants to slap you, where either of you are in respect to NY and London does not matter.

Honestly the two people in the same vehcile is not related to the orginal point, just an attempt to try and create a specail case to make the use of the rule seam illogical.

This is not a "special case", it's an example to show how your reasoning falls apart, which is better understood at high velocities.

The oginial point was using the difrence of the speed of a missile and your vechile is a house rule. Casing a missile with a jet does not matter to the rule as written.

Your assumption that the Earth exists as and much be used as the frame of reference is your house rule.

That an attacker will always exist as a frame of reference by which to measure a target's speed is FACT.

[Blue_Lion]

I can give a rats rear about what it says about crashes in HU this is rifts and rifts rules trump all. Crash damage in RUE does not say it is relative speed was written later in a rewrite of rules. (HU can not disprove a change in rules in Rifts.)

And yes the two people in a vehicle is a straw man defense because it does not address the point but is designed to make the point look defeated when it was not actually addressed. The point that was made. It does not matter how illogical you make the rules look they are the rules. Doing something more logical than the rules is a house rule.

So let me get this straight outside of combat there is a default way to determine speed, but you do not use that in combat. Why? Nothing in the rules for combat says it does not exist, and it talks about the speed the target is traveling at. If there is a default way to measure speed outside of combat you would need to be told not to se in combat.(selectively choosing when to use a know default without being told it is a house rule) To use a difrent default in combat than outside without being told is a house rule.

I never said that it should be easier to shoot a rooted tree, I just said the tree is traveling at 0 MPH. Because there is a known default of speed measurement for traveling. While the people may be getting closer than to the tree it is the shooter not the tree that is traveling. That is why I stated that the rules as written are illogical. But doing something else than RAW is a house rule.

There is only one answer to is are two people in a vehicle traveling at X speed traveling in common usage. (yes they are traveling, you use the information you are given to fill in the variables.) without being told in common usage that it is in relation to anything special they are traveling. Are the 126 people on a 747 traveling from new York to Texas traveling? (yes) are they traveling in relation to each other? (unknown.) See when I left the default then I told you that is how defaults work in common usage. There is no reason from the way the question was worded to assume I was asking if they where traveling in relation to each other. I asked if two people in a vehicle that I told you was traveling at X speed are traveling. Without anything to indicate a depart from the standard default you go with the default. So as I phased the question there was only one answer in common usage.


I never said or asked if bob and sue where traveling any further or closer to each other I asked if the stopped traveling.

(While speed relative to the attacker may be more logical, the rules do not indicate that instead are written with no special indicator to leave the default used every where else in the game, so are still in the same default. The way you determine max speed.)

The rules are written in common usage of English not physics, physics debates are outside of common usage in English.(basically I do not give a rats rump about physics I care about the commonly known meaning of the text. any thing else is a house rule.)

**So it clear now you do recognize the existence of a common default you are just choosing not to apply it in combat without being told to not use it, and instead are using lame rules lawyering and word games to try and disprove the existence of something you recognize exists. Further more you try and make a house rule about all combat speed being relative seam the default when nothing said to leave the standard default. I am through being trolled good day.

Lets just agree that the rules can be illogical and drop it.

[Natasha]

If you use the Shooter as the reference point to give velocity meaning, you must assert that the Shooter is inertial, which means its velocity never changes because it defines the standard of measure. Good luck with that.

Velocity is fixed at any given point in time.

Suppose the Shooter has a linear uniform speed of 50 m/s. What is its velocity at any given point in time of your choosing?

The two trains are moving along parallel paths, and it is an easy matter to calculate the velocity of one relative to the other, provided their velocities relative to the ground are already known.

Go back to the sentence describing what gives velocity meaning. What makes the direction component of their velocity parallel? What makes that a true statement? What gives it any meaning at all? The answer is given: "their velocities relative to the ground are already known".

Knowing direction relative to ground is not required to calculate direction relative to each other.

You can say the Shooter's direction is that which is parallel to the Target, but you don't know the Target's direction. So nothing precludes missiles from coming out of the ground, for instance. All directions are valid choices until you pick one. So, which one do you pick? The one that forces you to tell the player their character is hit by missiles coming out of the ground?

The earth is only one example of a reference point. You can also calculate it directly from the Death's Head, or from a 2nd Death's Head following a mile behind.

Of course, you can calculate the battle inside directly from the Death's Head if the DHT is inertial. I've already agreed to that. It's just that it's the same as calculating it from the surface if the DHT is inertial. Why? Because you are using the DHT to relate Shooter and Target. And that's what's common in all of your cited sources, including your "physics refresher": don't work the problem and then transform it to fit the physical situation, just start from the physical situation. Calculating from the surface gives you some stuff for free, which could be useful. For instance, you can answer questions related to the battle like where is the DHT now? Something the pilot might like to know given the battle going on in back.

[eliakon]

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. ... Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

And they have a velocity of 0 because the local velocity is calculated by looking at how fast they are moving in regard to the frame of reference.
In this case the death head that they are both inside of is the frame, and thus they have a velocity of 0 each.
This is why when you take a shot at a person in the game, you do not add in the earths velocity around the Sun, nor the Sun's velocity around the Milky Way, nor the Galaxies movement ad infinitum.
The frame of reference for the game is more or less "this play area here" regardless of if that is the earth, or inside some ruins, or on a space ship or what have you.

Umm.... what makes the death head the default frame when the death heads speed is detrimed by another frame so every thing in the death head exists in the same frame that the death head is. The reason we do not include the rotation of the earth in speed is the default way speed is commonly measured is in relation to the surface. Not because of your theory on limiting the frame.

Your confusing absolute frame with relative one.
Everything inside the deathshead is part of that 'frame'.
Just like everything on the earth is part of THAT 'frame'.
When shooting inside the deaths head the speed of the deathshead doesn't matter... because everything involved has the same speed/vector.
Just like when you shoot a person on the ground you do not need to add in the earths speed to both of you and say "well he is moving 670,000 MPH, so that's a minus -12,000 to strike" or whatever.

The rule says is the speed the target is traveling at, not velocity, or speed relative to the attacker. People inside a vehicle that is traveling are traveling, even if the are not moving under their own power.

Then everything is always at at LEAST -12,000 to strike
After all, they are all moving at a speed of 670,000MPH...
Or MAYBE it is "Speed as measured in the particular frame of reference being used for the combat in question"

So both dead boys are traveling at 1500 MPH, because the are on a vehicle that is considered to be traveling at 1500 MPH. (there is a default frame used to give speed stats a value.) While they may have a relative velocity of 0 to each other, there is a default way to determined speed is based of the surface of the earth. The DB in a moving vehicle always has a velocity, that is why they can get injured in a crash. The vehicle you are in is not the limit to the frame you are in, but how you are traveling through the frame you are in.

So your stance is that no one can hit anything except on a n20?
Since every roll to strike is always at a penalty of tens of thousands if not millions?

Basically the death head is using speed relative to the ground (default value of speed) so every thing inside the death head is in the same frame as the death head, and traveling in the death head, even if they are not moving. Because that is how speed and traveling is commonly measured. (people are getting so caught up in physics the are forgetting how people commonly talk about speed and traveling.)

You seem to be confused yourself.
You keep switching back and forth between arguing a fixed and relative frame....
...because you are picking one particular frame and claiming it is the fixed one....

Now I do know this is illogical but it is RAW.

No, no it is not.
We know this because the examples do NOT take the -12,000 strike penalty for speed....

(people are so caught up with principles of physics they are forgetting the basics of how speed is talked about and commonly measured. Rifts is not written in physics but in the way people commonly talk about things.)

You are doing the exact same thing
You are trying to aruge that motion is relative, while ALSO arguing it is fixed...

Speed for purposes of hit penalties is pretty obviously "the speed at which you are moving in the frame of reference being used for that combat"

[eliakon]

Shooting at a Moving Target: -1 to strike someone running (under 20 mph/32 km), -1 to strike for each additional 50 mph (80 km) of speed the target is traveling

Seams quite clear it is stating it is the speed the target is traveling at determines the level of the penalty. As written it does not indicate in any way it using speed relative to the attacker.

Actually it has to be relative speed.
There is NO FIXED FRAME OF REFERNECE FOR SPEED.

If you claim "that is speed as measured against the ground" then you are claiming a privileged frame... which is not stated in the rules. That is your house rule to add that in.


What people get confused is that there are different kinds of relative motion.

Now there are good and logical reasons btw that a shot between car driving at 50 MPH and another car driving at 50 MPH down the highway will be penalized...
that is because things like the air that is NOT moving at 50 MPH with them, and such.

But inside a plane flying at the speed of sound? A gun fight between two people inside that airplane is treated as if it is not moving at all...

Basically it might be thought of as "speed as measured on the particular map you are using". And since people moving around inside the airplane dont notice the outside speed and that speed has no measureable affect on their actions it is discounted.

[Blue_Lion]

A pair of CS grunts are taking a ride inside the same 1500mph Death's Head Transport. ... Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) it would be 0 (they're not moving toward or away from one another) and there would be no penalty to shoot the guy sitting next to you on the Death's Head Transport.

And they have a velocity of 0 because the local velocity is calculated by looking at how fast they are moving in regard to the frame of reference.
In this case the death head that they are both inside of is the frame, and thus they have a velocity of 0 each.
This is why when you take a shot at a person in the game, you do not add in the earths velocity around the Sun, nor the Sun's velocity around the Milky Way, nor the Galaxies movement ad infinitum.
The frame of reference for the game is more or less "this play area here" regardless of if that is the earth, or inside some ruins, or on a space ship or what have you.

Umm.... what makes the death head the default frame when the death heads speed is detrimed by another frame so every thing in the death head exists in the same frame that the death head is. The reason we do not include the rotation of the earth in speed is the default way speed is commonly measured is in relation to the surface. Not because of your theory on limiting the frame.

Your confusing absolute frame with relative one.
Everything inside the deathshead is part of that 'frame'.
Just like everything on the earth is part of THAT 'frame'.
When shooting inside the deaths head the speed of the deathshead doesn't matter... because everything involved has the same speed/vector.
Just like when you shoot a person on the ground you do not need to add in the earths speed to both of you and say "well he is moving 670,000 MPH, so that's a minus -12,000 to strike" or whatever.

The rule says is the speed the target is traveling at, not velocity, or speed relative to the attacker. People inside a vehicle that is traveling are traveling, even if the are not moving under their own power.

Then everything is always at at LEAST -12,000 to strike
After all, they are all moving at a speed of 670,000MPH...
Or MAYBE it is "Speed as measured in the particular frame of reference being used for the combat in question"

So both dead boys are traveling at 1500 MPH, because the are on a vehicle that is considered to be traveling at 1500 MPH. (there is a default frame used to give speed stats a value.) While they may have a relative velocity of 0 to each other, there is a default way to determined speed is based of the surface of the earth. The DB in a moving vehicle always has a velocity, that is why they can get injured in a crash. The vehicle you are in is not the limit to the frame you are in, but how you are traveling through the frame you are in.

So your stance is that no one can hit anything except on a n20?
Since every roll to strike is always at a penalty of tens of thousands if not millions?

Basically the death head is using speed relative to the ground (default value of speed) so every thing inside the death head is in the same frame as the death head, and traveling in the death head, even if they are not moving. Because that is how speed and traveling is commonly measured. (people are getting so caught up in physics the are forgetting how people commonly talk about speed and traveling.)

You seem to be confused yourself.
You keep switching back and forth between arguing a fixed and relative frame....
...because you are picking one particular frame and claiming it is the fixed one....

Now I do know this is illogical but it is RAW.

No, no it is not.
We know this because the examples do NOT take the -12,000 strike penalty for speed....

(people are so caught up with principles of physics they are forgetting the basics of how speed is talked about and commonly measured. Rifts is not written in physics but in the way people commonly talk about things.)

You are doing the exact same thing
You are trying to aruge that motion is relative, while ALSO arguing it is fixed...

Speed for purposes of hit penalties is pretty obviously "the speed at which you are moving in the frame of reference being used for that combat"

I think the one confused is you about what I am talking about.
I never claimed a relative frame did not exist, just that the default way we talk about speed is fixed.

(to break it d own)
I am saying the way speed by default is measured is fixed, not variable or relative to a set person.
Any statement or equation that has any refence the default puts the whole equation is in the defaults frame.
To not use the default frame you would need to 1 specify to use something other or 2 not use include a statement made in the default.

IE-
If Tom and Mike are in a jet traveling at 500 MPH sitting in their seats how fast are they traveling? 500 MPH(because you placed them and the jet in that frame that is the in commonly/default used frame to measure speed when people talk about speed)
If Tom and Mike are in jet traveling at 500 MPH sitting in their seats how fast are they traveling in relation to each other? 0
If Tom and Mike are sitting in a jet how fast are they traveling? 0 or no value given.
If tom is walking down the isle of a jet at 1.5 MPH how fast is tom moving? 1.5 MPH
If tom is walking 1.5 MPH of a jet traveling at 500 MPH how fast is Tom traveling? *Unknown variable (direction), so multiple answers may be right.

So when you say two people are on a death head traveling at 1500 MPH, they are be default traveling at 1500 MPH because you added a fixed variable that was made with a known default way it is measured. By stating the death head is traveling and using the default measurement you include that frame, and when that frame is the default of how people talk about speed that is what every one is in.

Now if you just say two people are on a death head transport there is no provided value of default travel so with the information we have they are not traveling. By removing any reference to the outside frame from the equation it does not matter.


So the two people in a death head traveling at death head traveling at 1500 MPH are traveling 1500 MPH are traveling at 1500 MPH be default even though the speed relative to each other may be 0.


**Basically once you tell us something is traveling at X speed every thing on it is also then traveling at X speed.***


If tom and Beth are siting with there seat belts on in a jet traveling at 5x the speed of light. They are traveling at 5X the speed of light.

If Tom and Beth are sitting next to each other on a jet with their seat belts on, then with the information for the equation they are not moving.

[Blue_Lion]

Shooting at a Moving Target: -1 to strike someone running (under 20 mph/32 km), -1 to strike for each additional 50 mph (80 km) of speed the target is traveling

Seams quite clear it is stating it is the speed the target is traveling at determines the level of the penalty. As written it does not indicate in any way it using speed relative to the attacker.

Actually it has to be relative speed.
There is NO FIXED FRAME OF REFERNECE FOR SPEED.

If you claim "that is speed as measured against the ground" then you are claiming a privileged frame... which is not stated in the rules. That is your house rule to add that in.


What people get confused is that there are different kinds of relative motion.

Now there are good and logical reasons btw that a shot between car driving at 50 MPH and another car driving at 50 MPH down the highway will be penalized...
that is because things like the air that is NOT moving at 50 MPH with them, and such.

But inside a plane flying at the speed of sound? A gun fight between two people inside that airplane is treated as if it is not moving at all...

Basically it might be thought of as "speed as measured on the particular map you are using". And since people moving around inside the airplane dont notice the outside speed and that speed has no measureable affect on their actions it is discounted.

The one that is confused here is you about the common use of words. People commonly do not talk about traveling as relative motion. Once you say the plane is traveling every thing on the pane is traveling.

And there is a default value/frame for speed, the one used to give value to a vehicles max speed any time something is in the equation then that frame is in use. With out a default frame for speed a speed stat has no value.
Speed is commonly talked about in refence to the surface. That is the default in common use. So to talk about it is relative concept like it is in physics is not common usage.

Rue is not a Physics book, the more advanced physics concepts do not actually apply. When people commonly talk about speed or traveling it is in relaion to the surface. The book was writen in how people commonly talk about things, so to depart from how people commonly talk about something you would need to be told so.

Where does it say that an object that is traveling stops traveling because you are traveling at the same speed?
Common usage once you say the jet is traveling at the speed of sound every thing in the jet is traveling at the speed of sound.

As I stated this is illogical but it is RAW. To switch to a relative frame when that is not how people commonly talk about speed is a house rule.


***If there was no default frame in common usage then statements like "the car was traveling 50 MPH" or "the max speed is 150 MPH" would have no value.

[eliakon]

Shooting at a Moving Target: -1 to strike someone running (under 20 mph/32 km), -1 to strike for each additional 50 mph (80 km) of speed the target is traveling

Seams quite clear it is stating it is the speed the target is traveling at determines the level of the penalty. As written it does not indicate in any way it using speed relative to the attacker.

Actually it has to be relative speed.
There is NO FIXED FRAME OF REFERNECE FOR SPEED.

If you claim "that is speed as measured against the ground" then you are claiming a privileged frame... which is not stated in the rules. That is your house rule to add that in.


What people get confused is that there are different kinds of relative motion.

Now there are good and logical reasons btw that a shot between car driving at 50 MPH and another car driving at 50 MPH down the highway will be penalized...
that is because things like the air that is NOT moving at 50 MPH with them, and such.

But inside a plane flying at the speed of sound? A gun fight between two people inside that airplane is treated as if it is not moving at all...

Basically it might be thought of as "speed as measured on the particular map you are using". And since people moving around inside the airplane dont notice the outside speed and that speed has no measureable affect on their actions it is discounted.

The one that is confused here is you about the common use of words. People commonly do not talk about traveling as relative motion. Once you say the plane is traveling every thing on the pane is traveling.

That is nice.
But it is neither accurate, nor what is being discussed here.
everything on the plane IS traveling. But to the people INSIDE the plane, they seem to be standing still.

And there is a default value/frame for speed, the one used to give value to a vehicles max speed any time something is in the equation then that frame is in use. With out a default frame for speed a speed stat has no value.

Again you are confused
Since if there is only ONE frame...
Then I assume that every passanger takes collision damage in your game every round?
After all, they have a max speed of say... 12 and the craft is moving at speed 500... that's a crash right?
Or do you admit that there is relative motion in the game and that the relative motion of the passenger is zero in regards to the vehicle (local reference frame) itself.

Speed is commonly talked about in refence to the surface. That is the default in common use. So to talk about it is relative concept like it is in physics is not common usage.

Again you are asserting something that is not actually the case.
Your assertion that everything is in reference to the surface is nice and all...
...but it is a circular definition that you prove by fiat.
Saying "there is one frame, the ground, and that it is the only frame... because I say that there is only one frame and thus it must be the ground" simply says "My headcanon is what we shall use and it must obviously be the One True Truth."
Unless of course you can point to a specific statement of this someplace...

Rue is not a Physics book, the more advanced physics concepts do not actually apply. When people commonly talk about speed or traveling it is in relaion to the surface.

Half right,
It is the LOCAL surface though.
That is why inside a death head you have a speed of 0(local)....

The book was writen in how people commonly talk about things, so to depart from how people commonly talk about something you would need to be told so.

Again partly correct
The problem is that you are OVER simplifiying it, and assuming that your way of viewing things is obviously the truth. While dismissing any other view as inherently invalid simply because you say it is, and simultaneously stating that any flaws with your stance are simply not there.

Where does it say that an object that is traveling stops traveling because you are traveling at the same speed?

Since no one is claiming that its not really an issue is it

Common usage once you say the jet is traveling at the speed of sound every thing in the jet is traveling at the speed of sound.

So your contention is that to throw a punch at the person next to you on that plane... you must roll at -60+?
After all, you are moving at the speed of sound, they are moving at the speed of sound... guess you must have a lot of misses in your game?
Or would you say that they are, for the purposes of the game, not moving as neither of them has motion relative to the local frame of reference (in this case the interior of the airplane)

As I stated this is illogical but it is RAW.

No it is not RAW. It is simply YOUR VIEW of what must be RAW.
Which we can flatly prove to be false since the RAW examples do not include those penalties.
The RAW appears to be that we should measure the speed of each object in the local frame...again using whatever local frame the speed is moving within.
Thus two people shooting at each other inside a space ship have a local speed of say, 12 and 9. NOT 9 light years per hour.

To switch to a relative frame when that is not how people commonly talk about speed is a house rule.

Everyone though DOES talk about relative frames.
No one talks about pushing the galley cart at 700MPH down the aisle of an airplane. They talk about "they were pushing it to fast, they had to be going at least five meters a minute."

***If there was no default frame in common usage then statements like "the car was traveling 50 MPH" or "the max speed is 150 MPH" would have no value.

Incorrect.
They have a value as "this car drives 50 MPH in relation to the current frame"
Thus if you drive that car on a road, or on the deck of an aircraft carrier it is still doing 50 MPH. Even though the road is "standing still" and the carrier is sailing around at 12 knots.

THAT is what people MEAN when they talk about speed. They presume that it is relative to the environment.

You seem to be confusing "relative to another moving object that shares the same reference" and "relative to the reference"

A fast car and a slow car on the deck of an aircraft carrier (or driving down the hall of a space ship) are going 50MPH and 80MPH....locally.
I don't need to know how fast the ship they are on is moving because that doesn't matter to the cars.
Now if someone on the sidelines takes a pot shot at that car?
Then we just changed the frame. Now the frame is not "the deck of the aircraft carrier" but "the surface of the ocean/Earth" and the speed of BOTH the ship AND the cars is now needed.

[Blue_Lion]

Why would a rule about movement and speed not be talking about speed as people commonly talk about speed and movement?



When we commonly talk about speed we talk about it relative to the earth surface.

If I say a car is traveling 50 MPH if I provide no other frame of refence you default to the surface. Talking about it in other frames is not how it is typically done in common speech.


http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics ... Speed.html

(talking about how we commonly talk about speed.)A physicist would say that the speed is measured relative to the Earth or in the Earth frame of reference.

When you talk about speed reltive to something else you comonly have to denote it. (step back from physics and think about how people normally talke about it.)

(think about this why would you say some one inside something you said was traveling X not be considered traveling in how people commonly talk?)

Now then step away from the people in a car for a moment(straw man). What is being discused orginally was how to hit missiles. Some one made a clame that the best way to do was with a jet traveling at super sonic speeds. Even by your own standard both the jet and the missile would be in the earth frame of refence, so why would you not use that frame to determine the speed of a missile?-When 1 both target and shooter are in that frame. 2 the way the average peson talks about speed is reltive to the earth.

If we assume that it is the speed of the attacker is the default frame(as he was suggesting) and that the penalty applies to missiles. A smart bomb LRM traveling at 2010 MPH trying to hit a stationary building would -35 to strike. Making them worthless. (just as you been trying to prove in was illogical one way it also is the other.) Now then if the earth was the 0(the common way people think about and measure speed) then the missile would be +5 to strike.


(basically most people think and talk about speed in refence to the earth by default. So if there is no other frame listed why would you not use that frame as the default when discussing rules? Once you say some one is on a vehcile that is traveling X, that means you set a frame outside a vehicle as what determines the speed things are traveling at. Then to use a difrent frame without instructions to for other things attached to the thing you placed in a outside frame is bad logic. )

(I know this clashes with physics but most people do not think in terms of physics and there is no reason to assume that the rule book was written in physics. But then again in physics you can change the results by merely observing something. aka the observer affect.)

[Natasha]

Incorrect.
They have a value as "this car drives 50 MPH in relation to the current frame"

Incorrect. They have a value as "this car drives 50 MPH in relation to an inertial frame".

A couple of distinct ideas are getting mixed together and it's turned into an overcomplicated mess. We've gone from missiles to Death's Head Transports to cars on carriers. But what they all have in common is that they require an inertial frame of reference.

The surface of Earth matters and is the first frame of reference in all of those cases. We cannot speak of the direction of a missile's or DHT's flight through the air without the Earth's surface. We cannot speak of a carrier sailing over the ocean or cars driving on the carrier which is sailing over the ocean without the Earth's surface.

To say the "default" frame means the frame which is used when none are specified. But if one is specified, then we see that "default" takes on the meaning of "initial". It is more accurate to say "initial" instead of "default" to avoid the problem altogether. The definition of an inertial frame means once we find one, then we can find other inertial frames.

For instance, if we specify a carrier sailing at 12 knots over the ocean as the inertial frame, then we have started from the surface of the Earth. To say the carrier is the "local" surface reveals the shortcut that it is. For if we start with the carrier, then we can end up in a direction that makes no physical sense. Of course, we don't do that because we take it as a given that it's sailing over the ocean, that's what carriers do after all. Whether we say it explicitly or not we start with the surface frame and then identify whether or not the carrier frame is inertial; if it is, then we can use it.

[Blue_Lion]

For game rules,
In order to have any measurement of speed have value in a game there must be something that is being treated as the 0 value or not moving for everything in the scenario.(a zero point is needed)Once you create a zero to assign value to speed there is no reason to stop using that zero for speed.-commonly people default this to the earth frame.


Two dead boys are sitting inside a deathhead transport that is traveling 500 MPH.

There are three things in that statement. Dead Boy A, Dead boy B. and a deathhead.
We are told the DeathHead is traveling 500 MPH so it is not being treated as the 0.
Dead boy A is inside the DeathHead traveling with it so he is not the 0.
Dead Boy B is also inside the Deathhead traveling with it so he is not the 0.
So then what is the 0 that gives the value to the traveling at 500 MPH. The earth frame is the 0 value in this scenario.


Lets expand it.
Two dead boys are sitting in a Deathhead that is traveling at 500 MPH. Dead boy A shoots Dead boy B.
We are told the death head is traveling at 500 MPH so it is not the frame that determines the value of speed in the scenario.
Dead boy A and B are still in it so they are not the 0 that gives value to the 500 MPH.
So the 0 that is giving value to the traveling speed is still the earth frame.

In physics changing the zero frame has nothing to do with how hard it is to shoot something. (weather you treat the earth, the moon or Kuthulu as the zero frame does not matter.) In real life(physics) it would be no harder to shoot a terrorist if you treated the moon as the zero frame than if you treated yourself as the zero frame. The calculations may have different numbers but the amount of skill to hit the target would remain the same.( other than snipers most combat shooters do not think of any math when they shoot.) They aim where they at the target lead as they think they need to and if they are skilled adjust fire as needed.

*Ok now the rules.
But in the rules you want to change the zero frame used in determation of traveling to avoid a huge penalty that you think is illogical. Not because the rules tell you to, but because you think it will make more sense that way. The only reason to change the frame (the zero) you would use for a statement about traveling outside of combat to a different one for traveling in combat is trying to avoid/change a unwanted penalty.(rules lawyering)


While it can lead to illogical sceneros as written there is no reason to assume the statement is not talking about the common way people express and measure speed, or that is treated different in and out of combat.

Basically why whould you assume that a statement about a vehicle or person traveling at a speed of 50 MPH means one thing outside combat and something else inside combat.

[dreicunan]

I like the idea of everyone having a -12000 to strike. It will encourage people to engage in glorious melee combat like the Man-Emperor of Mankind intended! (If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just skip ahead to about the 9:50 mark. If you really want to watch the whole series for full context, start here.)

[eliakon]

Sigh
I will try again to explain what I mean.

We have Adam and Bob. They are on an aircraft carrier that is sailing down the coast at 50 MPH.
Adam is running laps on the deck (at 5 miles per hour), while Bob is sitting in a chair timing him.

Charlie comes up the stairs, pulls out a paint ball gun and tags them both.
Charlie treats Adam as moving at 5MPH and Bob as if he is standing still...because to him he is.

Now, Doug on the coast line decides to get in the act.
He takes a shot at Adam and Bob.
Adam though is 50MPH +/- 5MPH (depending on which way he is running at the time) so treated as if he is going either 45MPH or 50MPH.
Bob is 'only' going 50 MPH though.

No one changed their speeds ever, they all have their set speeds... it is just what that speed is in relation to the shooter that seems to matter.

If we assume a constant, universal fixed frame...
Then Charlie treats both Adam and Bob the same as Doug does...
meaning that he has a movement penalty to hit the person who is sitting there, totally motionless as far as he can tell, doing nothing!

Nothing here is "physics" it is simply the basic common sense understanding of what speed means.
I don't care what the exact physics term for something is... its not really relevant. All that matters is the simple common sense understanding of how motion seems to work to people.

[Natasha]

Sigh
I will try again to explain what I mean.

Cheer up. I know exactly what you mean.

We have Adam and Bob. They are on an aircraft carrier that is sailing down the coast at 50 MPH.
Adam is running laps on the deck (at 5 miles per hour), while Bob is sitting in a chair timing him.

Charlie comes up the stairs, pulls out a paint ball gun and tags them both.
Charlie treats Adam as moving at 5MPH and Bob as if he is standing still...because to him he is.

Now, Doug on the coast line decides to get in the act.
He takes a shot at Adam and Bob.
Adam though is 50MPH +/- 5MPH (depending on which way he is running at the time) so treated as if he is going either 45MPH or 50MPH.
Bob is 'only' going 50 MPH though.

No one changed their speeds ever, they all have their set speeds... it is just what that speed is in relation to the shooter that seems to matter.

Which is 100% consistent with what I said.

If we assume a constant, universal fixed frame...
Then Charlie treats both Adam and Bob the same as Doug does...

Nope. With that said, physics ahead... feel free to stop reading now if you don't care.

In fact, it is perfectly valid and expected for some observers to disagree on the position and velocity within an inertial frame. Motion is always measured with respect to (w.r.t.) something. We usually use the surface and think about objects moving relative to it. We even use it to study the relative motion between two objects within the frame. We can see why Charlie and Doug disagree on Adam's and Bob's velocities in the inertial frame.

The carrier's displacement w.r.t. Earth is given by the vector s[sub]re[/sub].
Adam's displacement w.r.t. the carrier is given by the vector s[sub]ar[/sub].
Adam's displacement w.r.t. Earth is given by
s[sub]ae[/sub] = s[sub]ar[/sub] + s[sub]re[/sub]

The first time derivative of displacement is velocity; differentiating both sides w.r.t. time yields
v[sub]ae[/sub] = v[sub]ar[/sub] + v[sub]re[/sub]

If we define east to be the positive direction, then west is the negative direction. That is valid because parallel vectors combine algebraically. If Adam is running east, then
v[sub]ae[/sub] = (5 mph) + (50 mph) = 55 mph east
If Adam is running west, then
v[sub]ae[/sub] = (-5 mph) + (50 mph) = 45 mph east

Clearly, Doug, on the shore, sees something different than Charlie, on the carrier.

Similiarly, for two missiles on course for a head-on collision, we can find one missile w.r.t. to the other if we know their velocities w.r.t. to Earth. Suppose a slow missile travels at 500 mph west and a fast missile travels at 2500 mph east. So we are given the following
v[sub]se[/sub] = -500 mph
v[sub]fe[/sub] = 2500 mph
The relative velocity between them is given by
v[sub]sf[/sub] = v[sub]se[/sub] + v[sub]ef[/sub]
and since we know that v[sub]ef[/sub] = -v[sub]fe[/sub] we have
v[sub]sf[/sub] = (-500 mph) - (2500 mph) = -3000 mph
This result tells us that the slow missile "sees" the fast missile approaching at 3000 mph.

A final note for such motion problems. The most difficult part is keeping the subscripts straight. The first and the last subscripts on each side of the equals sign should be the same. Doing so effectively cancels, for instance, the [sub]r[/sub] in the first velocity equation
v[sub]ae[/sub] = v[sub]a[/sub] + v[sub]e[/sub]

[Axelmania]

We cannot speak of the direction of a missile's or DHT's flight through the air without the Earth's surface.

Yes we can. We can describe the direction relative to the moon or the sun, for example.

In order to have any measurement of speed have value in a game there must be something that is being treated as the 0 value or not moving for everything in the scenario.(a zero point is needed)

It's the shooter. Earth is situational. I don't think Kevin Siembieda perceives the Megaverse as being Ptolemaic.

Moon orbits Earth at 2,288mph, Mutants in Orbit doesn't imply people shooting at each other on the moon are suffering -44 to strike.

[Natasha]

We cannot speak of the direction of a missile's or DHT's flight through the air without the Earth's surface.

Yes we can. We can describe the direction relative to the moon or the sun, for example.

Please do. And if you get far, then tell me how reasonable it was to do. Or do you only apply that criterion expediently?

In order to have any measurement of speed have value in a game there must be something that is being treated as the 0 value or not moving for everything in the scenario.(a zero point is needed)

It's the shooter. Earth is situational. I don't think Kevin Siembieda perceives the Megaverse as being Ptolemaic.

Moon orbits Earth at 2,288mph, Mutants in Orbit doesn't imply people shooting at each other on the moon are suffering -44 to strike.

I've covered this several posts back. Please learn the difference between the physical reality of a surface and the geometrical device called a frame of reference.

And share some examples.

[Axelmania]

Are you thinking it would be very difficult to declare an arbitrary north/south pole on the moon or something? The MiO moon colony would obviously be more comfortable referring to things that way.

How do you think "Belters" navigate in "The Expanse"?

[lather]

Similiarly, for two missiles on course for a head-on collision, we can find one missile w.r.t. to the other if we know their velocities w.r.t. to Earth. Suppose a slow missile travels at 500 mph west and a fast missile travels at 2500 mph east. So we are given the following
v[sub]se[/sub] = -500 mph
v[sub]fe[/sub] = 2500 mph
The relative velocity between them is given by
v[sub]sf[/sub] = v[sub]se[/sub] + v[sub]ef[/sub]
and since we know that v[sub]ef[/sub] = -v[sub]fe[/sub] we have
v[sub]sf[/sub] = (-500 mph) - (2500 mph) = -3000 mph
This result tells us that the slow missile "sees" the fast missile approaching at 3000 mph.

What happened to the negative sign?

We cannot speak of the direction of a missile's or DHT's flight through the air without the Earth's surface.

Yes we can. We can describe the direction relative to the moon or the sun, for example.

Please do. And if you get far, then tell me how reasonable it was to do. Or do you only apply that criterion expediently?

I'm looking forward to this.

Are you thinking it would be very difficult to declare an arbitrary north/south pole on the moon or something? The MiO moon colony would obviously be more comfortable referring to things that way.

I'd bet you a thousand dollars that's exactly what she's saying to do.

[Natasha]

Similiarly, for two missiles on course for a head-on collision, we can find one missile w.r.t. to the other if we know their velocities w.r.t. to Earth. Suppose a slow missile travels at 500 mph west and a fast missile travels at 2500 mph east. So we are given the following
v[sub]se[/sub] = -500 mph
v[sub]fe[/sub] = 2500 mph
The relative velocity between them is given by
v[sub]sf[/sub] = v[sub]se[/sub] + v[sub]ef[/sub]
and since we know that v[sub]ef[/sub] = -v[sub]fe[/sub] we have
v[sub]sf[/sub] = (-500 mph) - (2500 mph) = -3000 mph
This result tells us that the slow missile "sees" the fast missile approaching at 3000 mph.

What happened to the negative sign?

Those are two distinct results. The first result is v[sub]sf[/sub] which is the slow missile w.r.t. the fast missile; or what the fast missile "sees". The second is the reverse of that. I am maintaining my convention from previous posts of east being positive so that west is necessarily negative.

Reversing the subscripts reverses the direction (and does not alter the size) of the vector.

Are you thinking it would be very difficult to declare an arbitrary north/south pole on the moon or something? The MiO moon colony would obviously be more comfortable referring to things that way.

How do you think "Belters" navigate in "The Expanse"?

So I just said (and not for the first time) that frames of reference have no physical manifestation. They are idealised images of a physical reality; they are geometrical (mathematical) devices used to solve motion problems. For motion problems near the surface of Earth, you use an idealised image of the surface of Earth. For motion problems near the surface of the Moon, you use an idealised image of the surface of the Moon.

The Belters probably use a heliocentric frame to map out the known trajectories and find the intercept points, then plan accordingly. For mid-course alteration, they can compute the velocity required to enter the desired trajectory. They can compute how to change their speed, inclination, or both. In all three cases, they are computing accelerations to change their velocity w.r.t. the Sun.

[Blue_Lion]

We cannot speak of the direction of a missile's or DHT's flight through the air without the Earth's surface.

Yes we can. We can describe the direction relative to the moon or the sun, for example.

In order to have any measurement of speed have value in a game there must be something that is being treated as the 0 value or not moving for everything in the scenario.(a zero point is needed)

It's the shooter. Earth is situational. I don't think Kevin Siembieda perceives the Megaverse as being Ptolemaic.

Moon orbits Earth at 2,288mph, Mutants in Orbit doesn't imply people shooting at each other on the moon are suffering -44 to strike.

Really so all movement in combat is written in the shooters frame lets check.

Shooting Wild: Has a penalty of -6 to strike and applies even to trained weapons experts when the character is terrified, angry/enraged, panicked, off balance, drunk, shooting from a moving vehicle/platform! horseback, spraying an area, shooting while under heavy fire himself, and while running, leaping, dodging, falling or hanging upside down

emphasis mine.
If it is the shooters perspective that is being used how can what he is standing on be a moving vehicle/platform?

Shooting at a Moving Target: -1 to strike someone running (under 20 mph/32 km),

That does not aapear to be something in a common reading that is taking place in the shooters persective. Because there is a key word there strike some one running. This would implies the use of the common way you would determine how fast some one is running.

There is nothing in combat that indicates it is not using the same method to dermine speed you would use for a statement about a vehicle traveling. Infact shooting whild does indicate combat is not taking place in the shooters frame.


The rules themselves no way indicate to use the shooters frame and wording seam to indicate that it is not the shooters frame being used to determine movment. -If outside of combat running at 15 MPH means Y, why would the same wording mean Z in combat?

[Blue_Lion]

Similiarly, for two missiles on course for a head-on collision, we can find one missile w.r.t. to the other if we know their velocities w.r.t. to Earth. Suppose a slow missile travels at 500 mph west and a fast missile travels at 2500 mph east. So we are given the following
v[sub]se[/sub] = -500 mph
v[sub]fe[/sub] = 2500 mph
The relative velocity between them is given by
v[sub]sf[/sub] = v[sub]se[/sub] + v[sub]ef[/sub]
and since we know that v[sub]ef[/sub] = -v[sub]fe[/sub] we have
v[sub]sf[/sub] = (-500 mph) - (2500 mph) = -3000 mph
This result tells us that the slow missile "sees" the fast missile approaching at 3000 mph.

What happened to the negative sign?

Those are two distinct results. The first result is v[sub]sf[/sub] which is the slow missile w.r.t. the fast missile; or what the fast missile "sees". The second is the reverse of that. I am maintaining my convention from previous posts of east being positive so that west is necessarily negative.

Reversing the subscripts reverses the direction (and does not alter the size) of the vector.

Are you thinking it would be very difficult to declare an arbitrary north/south pole on the moon or something? The MiO moon colony would obviously be more comfortable referring to things that way.

How do you think "Belters" navigate in "The Expanse"?

So I just said (and not for the first time) that frames of reference have no physical manifestation. They are idealised images of a physical reality; they are geometrical (mathematical) devices used to solve motion problems. For motion problems near the surface of Earth, you use an idealised image of the surface of Earth. For motion problems near the surface of the Moon, you use an idealised image of the surface of the Moon.

The Belters probably use a heliocentric frame to map out the known trajectories and find the intercept points, then plan accordingly. For mid-course alteration, they can compute the velocity required to enter the desired trajectory. They can compute how to change their speed, inclination, or both. In all three cases, they are computing accelerations to change their velocity w.r.t. the Sun.

To operate the belters most likely navigate using a grid system with a set zero reference point. The zero of the grid becomes the zero frame of all navigations. This means a navigator would find his location on the grid and direction the ship is facing on the grid and use it to plot direction and speed calculations to a target. All known trajectories of celestial bodies would be charted with time frame notes of travel based on the zero. This would give them the ability to make corrections to their course and locate themselves should they get lost. That would really be the easiest way to establish regular space travel with variable destinations, such asteroid mining with the least chance of getting hopelessly lost. (It is an adaption of how the military navigates without GPS. we assigned a grid to the earth and a default zero located at the intersection of the equator and the prime meridian. ) Key locations would likely transmit a location beacon to assist in the process.(like how we use gps)

Because every thing is moving at different speeds in the suns frame, the trajectory needed to reach any point would depend on when and where you start traveling and how fast you are traveling. A change to any of the time start location or speed changes the trajectory needed to reach a target. Set(non variable) space trajectories to reach any point do not work in the sun frame. (space travel operates different than how people commonly talk about speed and navigation.)

If travel is limited to just the solar system for the star/sun(or an idealized version of it) would likely be used as the default the zero. If I was to say that mars is traveling at an average of 53,979 miles per hour or 86,871 kilometers per hour the assumed default would be in reference to the sun.

Basically you would be plotting a course to a grid location that the target will be in or near when you get there.


To the questions on poles, while the moon does not have a magnetic poles it does have geographic poles based on its rotation. The first link below is a picture from NASA of the moons north pole. The sun has magnetic north and south poles that flip about every 11 years. So a moon colony does not need to create a north south refence it already exists. (This means measurements of space in the suns frame north and south may have a inherent value that changes with the sun.) Magnetic poles are set by the polarity of the magnetic field so they have a physical manifestation. Geographical are based of the rotation of a celestial body. While east and west have no inherent physical manifestation a magnetic north and south is a physical manifestation.

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagega ... _2054.html
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/th ... t-to-flip/

[Natasha]

To operate the belters most likely navigate using a grid system with a set zero reference point. The zero of the grid becomes the zero frame of all navigations. This means a navigator would find his location on the grid and direction the ship is facing on the grid and use it to plot direction and speed calculations to a target. All known trajectories of celestial bodies would be charted with time frame notes of travel based on the zero. This would give them the ability to make corrections to their course and locate themselves should they get lost. That would really be the easiest way to establish regular space travel with variable destinations, such asteroid mining with the least chance of getting hopelessly lost. (It is an adaption of how the military navigates without GPS. we assigned a grid to the earth and a default zero located at the intersection of the equator and the prime meridian. ) Key locations would likely transmit a location beacon to assist in the process.(like how we use gps)

Because every thing is moving at different speeds the trajectory needed to reach any point would depend on when and where you start traveling and how fast you are traveling. A change to any of the time start location or speed changes the trajectory needed to reach a target. Set space trajectories to reach any point do not exist. (space travel operates different than how people commonly talk about speed and navigation.)

I'm not ruling out they have some kind of UTM grid system for positioning on a giant celestial sphere*, but my thinking is that they only need to draw their orbit and the known asteroids' orbits and know where the possible intercepts occur. Course alterations would, in any case, remain as I described it -- a calculation of what acceleration gives the desired alteration.

Set trajectories do exist; although they may not be easy to find. For instance, Voyager 2's trajectory is only possible once every 176 years. But that used gravity-assisted manoeuvres (accelerations). To fly unpowered from Earth to Mars or Earth to Venus or Earth to Moon, you could use a simple Hohmann transfer to get there.

This is all way off the point of penalties to Strike but happy to learn about and discuss it more in another thread.

EDIT: * But they'd have to use spherical coordinates instead of a coordinate pair of reading right and up.

[eliakon]

Sigh
I will try again to explain what I mean.

Cheer up. I know exactly what you mean.

We have Adam and Bob. They are on an aircraft carrier that is sailing down the coast at 50 MPH.
Adam is running laps on the deck (at 5 miles per hour), while Bob is sitting in a chair timing him.

Charlie comes up the stairs, pulls out a paint ball gun and tags them both.
Charlie treats Adam as moving at 5MPH and Bob as if he is standing still...because to him he is.

Now, Doug on the coast line decides to get in the act.
He takes a shot at Adam and Bob.
Adam though is 50MPH +/- 5MPH (depending on which way he is running at the time) so treated as if he is going either 45MPH or 50MPH.
Bob is 'only' going 50 MPH though.

No one changed their speeds ever, they all have their set speeds... it is just what that speed is in relation to the shooter that seems to matter.

Which is 100% consistent with what I said.

If we assume a constant, universal fixed frame...
Then Charlie treats both Adam and Bob the same as Doug does...

Nope. With that said, physics ahead... feel free to stop reading now if you don't care.

And that is where I say that the error is.
There is no need for need for advanced physics in the game.
This is a game, not a masters thesis nor is it a reality simulation
The game simplifies a LOT of things... and this is pretty obviously one of them as there is less than no evidence that there is any game relevance to tracking delta subscripts and what have you.
While that actually exists in the realworld... it doesnt matter from a game point of view.

[Natasha]

And that is where I say that the error is.
There is no need for need for advanced physics in the game.
This is a game, not a masters thesis nor is it a reality simulation
The game simplifies a LOT of things... and this is pretty obviously one of them as there is less than no evidence that there is any game relevance to tracking delta subscripts and what have you.
While that actually exists in the realworld... it doesnt matter from a game point of view.

Sure, people don't have to discuss physics. But people are discussing physics and they made incorrect statements. I corrected them, but the intention is not to assert that physics is needed, that Rifts is a realistic simulation, or that anybody has to discuss stuff that they don't want to discuss. I tend to assume that if people are discussing physics that it's fair for me to discuss physics. Although I might start talking about physics-based off something said not originally physics-related, but not to force anybody into anything they don't want. I might also agree or disagree with something on the basis of physics, but I don't expect anybody to care.

I like talking about physics and so do others. While yet others do not. Cool. I do have a problem with the notion that because physics might not be needed, then it should not be discussed; as if anybody who talks about physics is somehow out of bounds. I can scroll past the discussions that do not interest me, and everybody else can scroll past discussions that don't interest them.

[eliakon]

And that is where I say that the error is.
There is no need for need for advanced physics in the game.
This is a game, not a masters thesis nor is it a reality simulation
The game simplifies a LOT of things... and this is pretty obviously one of them as there is less than no evidence that there is any game relevance to tracking delta subscripts and what have you.
While that actually exists in the realworld... it doesnt matter from a game point of view.

Sure, people don't have to discuss physics. But people are discussing physics

No, that's is where I am pretty sure you are wrong.
You appear to be the only person here who is discussing physics. The rest of us are discussing a game and in the process using general terms and examples.

[Axelmania]

I think I'll go and see if any game beside HU2 have the cumulative speed crash rules, since one appearance doesn't appear to convince BL despite the disclaimers on all books that it's Megaversal.

Shooting Wild: Has a penalty of -6 to strike and applies even to trained weapons experts when the character is terrified, angry/enraged, panicked, off balance, drunk, shooting from a moving vehicle/platform! horseback, spraying an area, shooting while under heavy fire himself, and while running, leaping, dodging, falling or hanging upside down

emphasis mine.
If it is the shooters perspective that is being used how can what he is standing on be a moving vehicle/platform?

This is clearly about steadiness, shooting from platforms to things not on the same platform throws you off balance. "From" implies a "to" not on the platform. Otherwise you can call the Earth itself a moving platform, or you think that combat on a 0.1mph iceberg should suffer penalties.

Shooting at a Moving Target: -1 to strike someone running (under 20 mph/32 km),

That does not aapear to be something in a common reading that is taking place in the shooters persective. Because there is a key word there strike some one running. This would implies the use of the common way you would determine how fast some one is running.

Are you thinking that the -1 to strike someone moving under 20mph only applies if they are running?

There is nothing in combat that indicates it is not using the same method to dermine speed you would use for a statement about a vehicle traveling.

Infact shooting whild does indicate combat is not taking place in the shooters frame.

The thing about vehicles is obviously because cars are bumpy and it makes it hard to aim compared to sturdily being able to stabilize your arm like a sniper.

The rules themselves no way indicate to use the shooters frame and wording seam to indicate that it is not the shooters frame being used to determine movment. -If outside of combat running at 15 MPH means Y, why would the same wording mean Z in combat?

Combat cares about the total speed you're moving at, not just the running component.

[Prysus]

Sure, people don't have to discuss physics. But people are discussing physics

No, that's is where I am pretty sure you are wrong.
You appear to be the only person here who is discussing physics. The rest of us are discussing a game and in the process using general terms and examples.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, back from page 1 ...

Sigh. Your lame rules lawyering is tiresome. As I said using coming use of English the only speed that matters is the speed the target is moving(the movement of the earth is irrelevant to how fast a car jet or boat is traveling in common usage of speed).

You need a physics refresher friend. Try http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics ... Speed.html for example:

This is the first mention of physics I see mentioned (though there had been discussion on how speed is determined in a non-game mechanic sense before that).

Prior to Axelmania trying to teach others about physics, the only post I see from Natasha is regarding the game mechanics. All three parties have brought up physics to varying degrees since.

Anyways, just clarifying for the record. As an individual, I've been skimming by 90% of the discussion. While the physics discussion doesn't hold a great appeal to me, far worse than that (to me) is the arguing back and forth with zero indication anyone will change their minds. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Blue_Lion]

What it boils down to me. Is people are using 1 way to determine speed for every general statement about speed. (an assumed default.) Then abandon that assumed default for this rule based not on the text but a rule they create that it is only the shooters perception that matters. (that is a house rule to treat 1 statement about speed/movement different than all others when you are not told to. Then claim that treating that rule like a general statement about X traveling Y MPH the same is as any other statement like that is a house rule.

[Natasha]

Even if we accept it for the sake of discussion, it is an odd thing to say that no matter what the shooter is doing, the speed remains the same because the shooter is all that matters. It isn't the shooter's perspective that matters. This can be demonstrated with physics or whatever personal definitions have been applied.

[Axelmania]

Prior to Axelmania trying to teach others about physics, the only post I see from Natasha is regarding the game mechanics. All three parties have brought up physics to varying degrees since.

Speed is just part of physics like "weight" is. Any discussion of speed or weight, however casual, falls under the semantic umbrella of physics.

What it boils down to me. Is people are using 1 way to determine speed for every general statement about speed. (an assumed default.)

I think you're wrong to assume that everyone thinks "in respect to Earth" when talking about speed in general statements.

If I'm piloting a Glitter Boy PA and running along the surface of the moon, I don't really care how fast I'm moving in respect to Earth, because I'm trying to figure out where I can get on the moon.

The only time my speed in respect to Earth would matter is if someone was trying to snipe me from the Earth, because then they would be inheriting the Earth's relative speed to the moon from that environment.

Then abandon that assumed default for this rule based not on the text but a rule they create that it is only the shooters perception that matters. (that is a house rule to treat 1 statement about speed/movement different than all others when you are not told to. Then claim that treating that rule like a general statement about X traveling Y MPH the same is as any other statement like that is a house rule.

There isn't any such "different than all others" because we simply do not assume all statements of speed to be in respect to the Earth as you are implying.

Speeds are about traversing any kind of various environment, so it is a flexible and subjective concept.

Even if we accept it for the sake of discussion, it is an odd thing to say that no matter what the shooter is doing, the speed remains the same because the shooter is all that matters. It isn't the shooter's perspective that matters. This can be demonstrated with physics or whatever personal definitions have been applied.

I can't make sense of this...

no matter what the shooter is doing,
the speed remains the same
because the shooter is all that matters

Did you mean "the target is all that matters"?

[Natasha]

You might be on the verge of finally understanding the difference between real surfaces and imaginary frames of reference.

And, no, I didn't mean the target is all that matters.

[lather]

I can't make sense of this...

no matter what the shooter is doing,
the speed remains the same
because the shooter is all that matters

That was her point: saying that the shooter simultaneously does and does not matter is nonsense. I think a more accurate representation of what she said is odd follows

no matter what the shooter is doing,
the speed remains the same because the shooter is all that matters

Or, think of it said this way: The shooter is all that matters, the speed is unaffected by what the shooter is doing.
It's a self-contradicting claim.

If we claim that the shooter measures the missiles at 500 miles per hour in all circumstances that a shooter can be in, then we can achieve the same result by using Occam's razor to cut the shooter from the picture.
If we need to calculate relative motions for any reason, then we are positioned to do so and have the methods for doing so.

EDIT: English!

[Axelmania]

You might be on the verge of finally understanding the difference between real surfaces and imaginary frames of reference.

And, no, I didn't mean the target is all that matters.

Where are you drawing the line at "real surfaces" exactly? Can the surface of an atmosphere qualify? The surface of an ocean?

If so, what is the difference between designating one molecular plane of air or water as a surface and another?

I can't make sense of this...

no matter what the shooter is doing,
the speed remains the same
because the shooter is all that matters

That was her point: saying that the shooter simultaneously does and does not matter is nonsense. I think a more accurate representation of what she said is odd follows

no matter what the shooter is doing,
the speed remains the same because the shooter is all that matters

Or, think of it said this way: The shooter is all that matters, the speed is unaffected by what the shooter is doing.
It's a self-contradicting claim.

If we claim that the shooter measures the missiles at 500 miles per hour in all circumstances that a shooter can be in, then we can achieve the same result by using Occam's razor to cut the shooter from the picture.
If we need to calculate relative motions for any reason, then we are positioned to do so and have the methods for doing so.

EDIT: English!

I think I'm just having trouble connecting this to preceding conversation, who made both halves of this argument and where?

[Natasha]

Where are you drawing the line at "real surfaces" exactly? Can the surface of an atmosphere qualify? The surface of an ocean?

If so, what is the difference between designating one molecular plane of air or water as a surface and another?

Yes, there are many real surfaces. In classical mechanics, the surface is the interface between two bulk-matter objects. For instance, where a car's tyres interface with the asphalt is a surface and the car has a surface with the atmosphere; there are surfaces inside the car, too. For Earth, in this context, it's the interface between the bulk-matter of the planet and the atmosphere. For the Moon, it's the interface between the bulk-matter of the moon and space.

There's an entire field of science called "surface science" and you might find all the details you could ever want to know about surfaces by reading up on it. But for motion problems like in this thread, I've provided a typical standard for describing real surfaces. In analytical terms, surfaces are where support forces and frictional forces are operative.

When you read phrases like "the surface frame", it is not meant that the surface is a frame of reference. What is meant is the frame of reference models the surface. This is sometimes called the "lab(oratory) frame" although it's usually an actual lab in those cases. Reference frames are purely mathematical devices used in calculating solutions to the problems. You can think of reference frames as mathematical models of the real world. It turns out that it is very convenient to model the surfaces of planets for a large number of motion problems near them. Identifying the inertial frame is important because both Newtonian mechanics and (special) relativistic mechanics are only valid when using them.

Thus for missiles or for cars on carriers, the surface is an extremely reasonable choice to model with an inertial frame.

[lather]

I think I'm just having trouble connecting this to preceding conversation, who made both halves of this argument and where?

Here's a few samples.

The only logical frame of reference to measure target speed by is the attacker, because the attacker is the only other frame of reference GUARANTEED to be there.

Unless we are given a specific frame of reference (ie "speed in relation to earth's core, speed in relation to sun, speed in relation to bearskin rug") the only logical frame of reference is the other object.

The only things guaranteed to exist are the target and the shooter. The barrel of your gun and the point you're aiming for.

Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker) ...

[Axelmania]

Where are you drawing the line at "real surfaces" exactly? Can the surface of an atmosphere qualify? The surface of an ocean?

If so, what is the difference between designating one molecular plane of air or water as a surface and another?

Yes, there are many real surfaces. In classical mechanics, the surface is the interface between two bulk-matter objects. For instance, where a car's tyres interface with the asphalt is a surface and the car has a surface with the atmosphere; there are surfaces inside the car, too. For Earth, in this context, it's the interface between the bulk-matter of the planet and the atmosphere. For the Moon, it's the interface between the bulk-matter of the moon and space.

There's an entire field of science called "surface science" and you might find all the details you could ever want to know about surfaces by reading up on it. But for motion problems like in this thread, I've provided a typical standard for describing real surfaces. In analytical terms, surfaces are where support forces and frictional forces are operative.

When you read phrases like "the surface frame", it is not meant that the surface is a frame of reference. What is meant is the frame of reference models the surface. This is sometimes called the "lab(oratory) frame" although it's usually an actual lab in those cases. Reference frames are purely mathematical devices used in calculating solutions to the problems. You can think of reference frames as mathematical models of the real world. It turns out that it is very convenient to model the surfaces of planets for a large number of motion problems near them. Identifying the inertial frame is important because both Newtonian mechanics and (special) relativistic mechanics are only valid when using them.

Thus for missiles or for cars on carriers, the surface is an extremely reasonable choice to model with an inertial frame.

I believe our general purpose for using surfaces as inertial frame models is due to inheritance of a baseline velocity from that surface, so surfaces are only a means to an end and are only convenient in that friction with them and their parts equalize things in contact with them over time to have an equal velocity at what we refer to as "rest".

I think I'm just having trouble connecting this to preceding conversation, who made both halves of this argument and where?

Here's a few samples.

The only logical frame of reference to measure target speed by is the attacker, because the attacker is the only other frame of reference GUARANTEED to be there.
Unless we are given a specific frame of reference (ie "speed in relation to earth's core, speed in relation to sun, speed in relation to bearskin rug") the only logical frame of reference is the other object.
The only things guaranteed to exist are the target and the shooter. The barrel of your gun and the point you're aiming for.
Now if you ditch your house rule about "relative to Earth" velocity and use the most logical reading of this (velocity relative to attacker)

Lather regarding those things I posted, I don't understand which of them equate to:

The shooter is all that matters,
the speed is unaffected by what the shooter is doing.

I've never said the shooter is ALL that matters (my proposal is measuring the speed between 2 things, shooter and target)

I've never said speed is unaffected by what shooter is doing. To the contrary, what they are doing very much matters because their movement and their target's movement influences the speed they're moving apart (or together).

[Blue_Lion]

No the attacker is not the only frame of refence granted to always be there.
The rule is talking about the target moving, so the targets frame of refence is still there.
The default frame you track statements that X is traveling Y outside of combat is still there.(ie-how you give value to a statement that a death head is traveling 500 MPH.)

(basically my point was you treated this statement about something traveling different than how you treat it outside of combat. Not based on text but on a house rule that the shooters refence is the one that matters.)

[Axelmania]

No the attacker is not the only frame of refence granted to always be there.
The rule is talking about the target moving, so the targets frame of refence is still there.

Clearly meant the only OTHER frame of reference. You need 2.

The default frame you track statements that X is traveling Y outside of combat is still there.(ie-how you give value to a statement that a death head is traveling 500 MPH.)

There is no default frame of reference. Traveling up moves you away from the Earth's core, traveling circumference doesn't.

[Blue_Lion]

No the attacker is not the only frame of refence granted to always be there.
The rule is talking about the target moving, so the targets frame of refence is still there.

Clearly meant the only OTHER frame of reference. You need 2.

The default frame you track statements that X is traveling Y outside of combat is still there.(ie-how you give value to a statement that a death head is traveling 500 MPH.)

There is no default frame of reference. Traveling up moves you away from the Earth's core, traveling circumference doesn't.

Actually any thing seen moving in a frame is compared to frameof refence. You do not determine movement from two frame of refence as use of a frame of refence for movement requires it be treated as not moving, from the targets frame of refence it is not traveling but the shooter is and the ground is. You need do not need two frames refence, you need a frame of refence and object.

Saying there is no default frame means a statement that a deathhead is traveling 500 MPH has no value, because there is no frame to default to. (measuring speed requires a frame of refence being treated as not moving.)-

Typically on earth unless told other wise people commonly default to the surface/earth frame. That is how a undefined statement like the Death head is traveling 500 miles per hour has value. You default to a default frame(on earth we default to the earth frame) when no value is giving. You yourself made undefined statements using this frame, such as X is traveling Y mph. You made a refence using the default frame to dismiss its existence just now, you said if you travel up, for there to be an up or down there must be a frame of refence to give it value. So if moving up moves you away from the earths core, you defaulted to an earth frame of refence with out even realizing it, because it is how we are taught to think about movement when we are little.

*Basically-John is traveling at 50 MPH is a statement that assumes a default to the earth frame in common use that is what gives it a unspecified default value.(the assumed default could be wrong if it turns out he is on the moon, or phase world, but typically people would think about it in terms relative to the earth making that the default frame people commonly use. It may not be physics but it is common use in English.)*

(the part about traveling the circumference is an example of specifying a frame, not evidence of a lack of default.)


The most correct statement is the only frame of refence that is always present is the setting(location) being used for the game.
As any given charter or object can be removed from the game setting but the game always has a setting. The setting may change but there is always a in game setting. In combat there are attackers and targets but outside of combat there are no attackers or targets. So in discussions about movement an attacker is not always present, so it is not the default value of undefined statements about movement.

(That would mean logically all undefined statements about movement would be in the setting frame of refence as it is the only constant. So if the setting was limited to the inside of a transport movement would be to the transport frame of refence but if the setting is in the Chi town burbs the frame of refence would default to rifts earth frame of refence.)